tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1579572108584973334.post619139612481295815..comments2012-06-26T23:17:04.859-04:00Comments on Musings and Philosophizings: Where I Am Now, Part 2Alex Marshallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14438933285577775806noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1579572108584973334.post-55748217472746414622011-03-22T20:26:13.850-04:002011-03-22T20:26:13.850-04:00I think there's a great deal of wisdom in what...I think there's a great deal of wisdom in what you're saying (and I certainly agree that there's a need for humility when it comes to these sorts of questions!). A related issue is that of how to manage disagreements within the church. Essentially, at what point do we have to stop agreeing to disagree on something? This is particularly pertinent in England with the various divisions in the Anglican church here. For example, some people within the church disagree with the ordination of female bishops but are willing to accept them in the church for the sake of maintaining unity, whereas other who oppose female bishops see this as going a step too far, and can't see how they can remain within a church which allows them. Regardless of whether or not women should be allowed to be bishops, and I can see strong arguments for both sides, there is the further question of how far doctrinal or theological agreement can or should be sacrificed in favour of unity within the church. When it comes to personal theological opinion, there's certainly something to be said for recognising uncertainty and trying to make the best judgement possible at that time; when similar issues arise in a corporate setting, it gets even more difficult.Anton Rosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1579572108584973334.post-21589630651562132232011-03-18T11:36:33.347-04:002011-03-18T11:36:33.347-04:00Thanks for the comment, Anton! Very interesting q...Thanks for the comment, Anton! Very interesting question, one that I've been working through, at least to some extent, lately in several posts on Hermeneutics.<br /><br />What I guess I would say in direct answer to your question is that I'm not sure this is an either/or situation. It is certainly true that within the bounds of authority or Orthodoxy as I have laid them out there is a very wide range of possible opinions. To that extent, I think we have to accept some degree of uncertainty if for no other reason than humility- there are some really smart people who think very differently about these issues, I can't make a definitive claim to "know" with any "certainty" what the answer is. Yet, that statement does not (or at least, I don't think it does) prevent us from making a best judgement. Holding our beliefs open to the possibility that we are wrong and that someone will convince us otherwise some day does not mean that we don't form a belief at all. We do the best we can with our understanding at a given time and then continue to grow and learn and see where that leads us.<br /><br />Does that make any sense?Alex Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14438933285577775806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1579572108584973334.post-22568858437451676702011-03-16T16:39:43.795-04:002011-03-16T16:39:43.795-04:00Alex,
I'm a graduate student in England and ...Alex, <br /><br />I'm a graduate student in England and I've just stumbled across your blog while reading a few different articles on the current Rob Bell debate. Very interesting blog! Reading your account here, your story is very similar to mine in many ways: non-denominational but broadly evangelical background, studied theology/biblical studies and became dissatisfied with(whilst not entirely rejecting)that background and grew closer to a Barthian view of authority/revelation. I suppose that the danger of this is the possibility of sliding into pure subjectivity, without any objective or axiomatic position. The suggestion of the Apostle's Creed as a core 'orthodoxy' has some merit, but even there you'll get different interpretations. What does it mean to say that Christ was resurrected, for example? The current Rob Bell debate is a case in point: a universalist position can fit (I would suggest)within the apostle's creed, and also within scripture and tradition, and yet so too can its opposite. If our authority is to be found primarily in God, rather than a source such scripture or tradition, then we're often just left in uncertainty, as He generally just isn't that accessible. When it comes to a theological debate where both sides of the argument can be supported in scripture, tradition, and our own experience of God, is that a signal to accept uncertainty, or should we try to make the best judgment we can? That's where I'm unsure, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.Anton Rosenoreply@blogger.com